|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
in the discussion hold for the delation of the previous page in 2012, the two people which wrote in the discussion debate just said the Order is a fake one, along with the Dynasty which awards it, which meant the article of the Order had to be deleted. When I wrote this article yesterday I did not know about the existence of the previous page, but once I saw the arguments used in 2012, I filled the page with more sources, such as the one of an important newspaper in Spain called La Razón were they mention the Order as an official one of the Royal House, or the page dedicated to the currently bestowed Dynastic Orders which are awarded with official recognition from States, such as this one is by Georgia. Georgia recognised the historical rights of the Bagration Family and this gives its Head the Fons Honorum required to create Orders. They did so in 2009 and created the Order of the Crown of Georgia. A part from Georgia`s official recognition (even ex Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili was awarded, officially, one of the Dynastical Orders), the Orthodox Church of Georgia recognised the Dynasty's status and the Orders conferred by them. Proof of it is that the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church of Georgia received the Dynastic Orders of the House of Bagration. Also international religious figures received the Order, such as the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem or Serbia. Another proof of the recognition of the Dynasty in Georgia is that they appear in the news as the House of Bagration, as these two video show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly47cxPnYgc. Finally, the Royal House website and heraldry blogs show themain information available from the Order, as happens with most of the world Orders: the issuing insotitution published the decrees of creation of the orders. While there is evidence the Order (very young one though) exists far from the website and the heraldry blogs, as proved in the page sources, the article should not be deleted. In fact, if there is something to highlight as a controversy, it should be posted in the page, but people who search for it should be able to have information about it in Wikipedia. Link to the page in my Sandbox: /info/en/?search=User:Alexeinikolayevichromanov/Sandbox#Sources Alexeinikolayevichromanov ( talk) 15:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I am surprised by the lack of understanding about certain key chivalric concepts.... many dynastic orders exist and are conferred by a genealogically accepted (proven, or contested) heirs to a royal houses . Some of these now private affiliations, but are, indeed, very ancient and highly respected, but have lost state sanction or have even been outlawed in certain jurisdictions, which is not the case for the Order of the Eagle of Georgia (but is for other orders like St. Mauurice and St. Lazarus which has its Wiki website). Wiki has many web-pages dedicated to orders that have much less support than the OEG..(e.g. St. Lazarus) Now it is clear, for these numerous House orders, there is no sovereign statutory certification body that can make binding decisions about their chivalric authenticity. Legitimacy is largely a matter of acceptance within the chivalric community--and even, reductio ad absurdem, by the holders of the orders alone... To be sure, several private peer-review bodies including Burkes Peerage, the Augustan Society, and, the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry (ICOC) are now generally trusted. And, by the way, the ICOC does have a web site so I'm not sure about the confusion by one of the editors in who seemingly, mistakenly, refers to the International Commission on the orders of Knighthood [which doesn't exist].. To be sure, none of these entities has, nor claims to be a final authority in these matters. In fact the Augustan Society carefully points out that it neither certifies Chivalric validity nor refutes the claims of orders not in its lineup. As noted, the ICOC makes similar claims about its lists being fluid and open to reinterpretation. The lack of a formal sanctioning body makes the issue of chivalric legitimacy tricky for the many house orders that are no longer governed by sovereign state or papal statute. For these, credibility rests on whether or not they have a valid fons hornorum, or, arguably are a patriarchal decoration....another fascinating field of inquiry. Ravenswing might look into this concept. Nearly all scholars in the field agree that the heads of formerly regnant houses, by right of blood (jure sanguinis), can confer (jus honorum) inherited household orders moto proprio as an inviolable family prerogative. Prominent Italian Jurist, and president of chamber of the Italian Republic’ highest court of appeal the Corte Suprema di Cassazione expressed the idea of heritable sovereignty this way: “Sovereignty is a perpetual quality, indelibly linked and united in the centuries to all the offspring of one who first achieved or claimed and is realized in the person of the Head of Name and Arms of Dynasty. . . “ (Journal of Heraldry and Genealogy No. 7-12 of December 1954), Other scholars would go so far as to say that non-regnant heads of even contested households, especially those who did not abdicate (Prince Davis's branch) can do what they want and even create new orders. all these points are debatable, But it is clear that the order of the Eagle of Georgia, is far more than that which Prince David or "Mr. Bagration" as one of the poorly informed editors puts it, "has in his head." Even a casual student of Georgian History knows that he is a valid pretender...and probably the leading pretender....he is not a fantasy Royal as a one wiki editor suggests. A good scholarly debate can be had here, but not on this level of casting David M. as a self-styled Prince.... ... added in this series of edits (9 to 10 February) by two IPs, 136.160.156.61 and 74.107.109.196
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The article was deleted via AFD in 2013 and only cited an obituary at the time. The article was restored to Draft space yesterday at Draft:Paul Randles and I put some work into it. Although one user had brought up multiple sources in the AFD discussion, no one added them to the article at the time, so I added them. As pointed out by one respondent in the AFD, Game Inventor's Guidebook at least, is a valid reliable independent source, and discusses the subject and one of his games in detail. I also added a source of my own, Hobby Games: The 100 Best, another reliable independent source, which discusses the subject and the same game in even more detail. Since this is not a WP:BLP, none of those special concerns apply. I feel it is worth discussing whether the article is ready to go back into article space. If any other users can find additional sources to add, that would help with any outstanding notability issues. BOZ ( talk) 15:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
in the discussion hold for the delation of the previous page in 2012, the two people which wrote in the discussion debate just said the Order is a fake one, along with the Dynasty which awards it, which meant the article of the Order had to be deleted. When I wrote this article yesterday I did not know about the existence of the previous page, but once I saw the arguments used in 2012, I filled the page with more sources, such as the one of an important newspaper in Spain called La Razón were they mention the Order as an official one of the Royal House, or the page dedicated to the currently bestowed Dynastic Orders which are awarded with official recognition from States, such as this one is by Georgia. Georgia recognised the historical rights of the Bagration Family and this gives its Head the Fons Honorum required to create Orders. They did so in 2009 and created the Order of the Crown of Georgia. A part from Georgia`s official recognition (even ex Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili was awarded, officially, one of the Dynastical Orders), the Orthodox Church of Georgia recognised the Dynasty's status and the Orders conferred by them. Proof of it is that the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church of Georgia received the Dynastic Orders of the House of Bagration. Also international religious figures received the Order, such as the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem or Serbia. Another proof of the recognition of the Dynasty in Georgia is that they appear in the news as the House of Bagration, as these two video show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly47cxPnYgc. Finally, the Royal House website and heraldry blogs show themain information available from the Order, as happens with most of the world Orders: the issuing insotitution published the decrees of creation of the orders. While there is evidence the Order (very young one though) exists far from the website and the heraldry blogs, as proved in the page sources, the article should not be deleted. In fact, if there is something to highlight as a controversy, it should be posted in the page, but people who search for it should be able to have information about it in Wikipedia. Link to the page in my Sandbox: /info/en/?search=User:Alexeinikolayevichromanov/Sandbox#Sources Alexeinikolayevichromanov ( talk) 15:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I am surprised by the lack of understanding about certain key chivalric concepts.... many dynastic orders exist and are conferred by a genealogically accepted (proven, or contested) heirs to a royal houses . Some of these now private affiliations, but are, indeed, very ancient and highly respected, but have lost state sanction or have even been outlawed in certain jurisdictions, which is not the case for the Order of the Eagle of Georgia (but is for other orders like St. Mauurice and St. Lazarus which has its Wiki website). Wiki has many web-pages dedicated to orders that have much less support than the OEG..(e.g. St. Lazarus) Now it is clear, for these numerous House orders, there is no sovereign statutory certification body that can make binding decisions about their chivalric authenticity. Legitimacy is largely a matter of acceptance within the chivalric community--and even, reductio ad absurdem, by the holders of the orders alone... To be sure, several private peer-review bodies including Burkes Peerage, the Augustan Society, and, the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry (ICOC) are now generally trusted. And, by the way, the ICOC does have a web site so I'm not sure about the confusion by one of the editors in who seemingly, mistakenly, refers to the International Commission on the orders of Knighthood [which doesn't exist].. To be sure, none of these entities has, nor claims to be a final authority in these matters. In fact the Augustan Society carefully points out that it neither certifies Chivalric validity nor refutes the claims of orders not in its lineup. As noted, the ICOC makes similar claims about its lists being fluid and open to reinterpretation. The lack of a formal sanctioning body makes the issue of chivalric legitimacy tricky for the many house orders that are no longer governed by sovereign state or papal statute. For these, credibility rests on whether or not they have a valid fons hornorum, or, arguably are a patriarchal decoration....another fascinating field of inquiry. Ravenswing might look into this concept. Nearly all scholars in the field agree that the heads of formerly regnant houses, by right of blood (jure sanguinis), can confer (jus honorum) inherited household orders moto proprio as an inviolable family prerogative. Prominent Italian Jurist, and president of chamber of the Italian Republic’ highest court of appeal the Corte Suprema di Cassazione expressed the idea of heritable sovereignty this way: “Sovereignty is a perpetual quality, indelibly linked and united in the centuries to all the offspring of one who first achieved or claimed and is realized in the person of the Head of Name and Arms of Dynasty. . . “ (Journal of Heraldry and Genealogy No. 7-12 of December 1954), Other scholars would go so far as to say that non-regnant heads of even contested households, especially those who did not abdicate (Prince Davis's branch) can do what they want and even create new orders. all these points are debatable, But it is clear that the order of the Eagle of Georgia, is far more than that which Prince David or "Mr. Bagration" as one of the poorly informed editors puts it, "has in his head." Even a casual student of Georgian History knows that he is a valid pretender...and probably the leading pretender....he is not a fantasy Royal as a one wiki editor suggests. A good scholarly debate can be had here, but not on this level of casting David M. as a self-styled Prince.... ... added in this series of edits (9 to 10 February) by two IPs, 136.160.156.61 and 74.107.109.196
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The article was deleted via AFD in 2013 and only cited an obituary at the time. The article was restored to Draft space yesterday at Draft:Paul Randles and I put some work into it. Although one user had brought up multiple sources in the AFD discussion, no one added them to the article at the time, so I added them. As pointed out by one respondent in the AFD, Game Inventor's Guidebook at least, is a valid reliable independent source, and discusses the subject and one of his games in detail. I also added a source of my own, Hobby Games: The 100 Best, another reliable independent source, which discusses the subject and the same game in even more detail. Since this is not a WP:BLP, none of those special concerns apply. I feel it is worth discussing whether the article is ready to go back into article space. If any other users can find additional sources to add, that would help with any outstanding notability issues. BOZ ( talk) 15:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |